F-35 and X-47B

[Corsair1963]

The million dollar question for the Boeing MQ-25 is it's RCS??? In short how stealthy is it???



Personally, I still think the Lockheed Martin contender had far more potential.....


IMHO

MQ25L.jpg (4.89 KiB) Viewed 69373 times

[spazsinbad]

Why Does Boeing's MQ-25 Prototype Look So Stealthy? [EARLIER: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=384988&hilit=Warwick#p384988 ]
03 Jan 2018 Graham Warwick in Ares

"...Boeing’s MQ-25 design may have acquired its stealth features when it was UCLASS, and retained its shape through the many study phases that led up to the final CBARS RFP. It may be a bet placed by Boeing that the Navy, once it gets the Stingray on its carrier decks, will want to evolve the aircraft from an unmanned tanker to a surveillance/strike asset that needs stealth...."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/blog/why-does- ... o-stealthy

[spazsinbad]

Boeing MQ-25 Stingray Unmanned Aerial Refueler - test flight with landing gear up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFnTvxSROQ

[spazsinbad]

PMA-201 demonstrates SBIR technology to advance aerial refueling
09 Jan 2020 NAVAIR SBIR/STTR Program Management Office

"...Research under SBIR topic N07-172 lead to the development of Actively Stabilized Refueling Drogue System (ASDRS) by Analytical Mechanical Associated (AMA); a system that is able to counteract disturbances on the aerial refueling drogue in flight. Integrated with the N15A-T014 effort developed by Coherent Technical Services, Inc. (CTI), the Innovative Instrumentation Package: Optical Reference System (ORS), an image processing system that can determine drogue position with Hi-Resolution video has resulted in a more stable aerial refueling platform. These began as two separate Science and Technology efforts in response to two independent needs.

The first was the need to provide a more stable aerial refueling platform so that our receiver aircraft could engage the drogue and receive fuel more safely and efficiently. The ASDRS consists of a pair of aluminum shrouds that can rotate mounted onto the exiting hose end-refueling coupling. On these shrouds are pairs of lift and roll strakes that produce the lift force to counteract the disturbance and the roll torque needed to generate power that will stored in a system of on-board super-capacitors. A pair of DC motors controlled by an on-board control law system drives the drogue control system. When the system is not in active mode, the DC motors recharge the super-capacitors....

...NAVAIR’s PMA-201 has recently been awarded a Future Readiness Initiative (FRI) starting in 2021 to develop the next iteration of the ARS [USN Aerial Refueling Store]. These technologies will be key enablers for the future unmanned/ automated receiver and are being looked at to transition under this FRI to support readiness and the future automated receivers. Other transition opportunities could include tanker platforms such as USMC and US Air Force....

...said Tom Sanders, managing director, Coherent Technical Services, Inc. “The mission of aerial refueling has always been difficult and dangerous, and our system will not only protect our pilots and aircraft, but enable the future of unmanned military aviation.”"

Source: https://www.dcmilitary.com/tester/news/ ... f357f.html

[spazsinbad]

MQ-25 BOING! Stingray Test '19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5GXR5VqV2E

[hornetfinn]

I wonder when we will see much larger unmanned aerial refuelling tankers? Say something like KC-130 in capacity or something like that and then towards larger aircraft. I think the technology is becoming to a point where this would be possible and actually worthwhile. Of course having stealthy tanker would be preferable to improve survivability of the tanker force. Naturally it will take years (probably something like 15-20 years depending on capabilities) before such an aircraft could become operational even if full development started today. I see this happening at some point in the future as it would reduce personnel costs, improve tanker force survivability and performance. I could see something like supersized MQ-25 as a good possibility.

[marauder2048]

The Actively Stabilized Refueling Drogue System (ASDRS) described above.
Should be obvious but the left video is the passive drogue and right video is active.

[spazsinbad]

Mesmerising - thanks.

[steve2267]

The Actively Stabilized Refueling Drogue System (ASDRS) described above.
Should be obvious but the left video is the passive drogue and right video is active.

By my Mk1 eyeball... they seem to have damped movement to less than one basket diameter. Impressive.

[steve2267]

I wonder when we will see much larger unmanned aerial refuelling tankers? Say something like KC-130 in capacity or something like that and then towards larger aircraft. I think the technology is becoming to a point where this would be possible and actually worthwhile. Of course having stealthy tanker would be preferable to improve survivability of the tanker force. Naturally it will take years (probably something like 15-20 years depending on capabilities) before such an aircraft could become operational even if full development started today. I see this happening at some point in the future as it would reduce personnel costs, improve tanker force survivability and performance. I could see something like supersized MQ-25 as a good possibility.

I dinno how a probe/drogue system would work, nor the dynamics of a refueling boom when so attached, but I noticed how voluminous the B-2's fuselage is, yet from training wing edge on... it is downright tiny. Would a flying wing make a good stealthy re-fueler? Rather than mothballing / destroying the B-2's as the B-21 Raider comes on line, could they be converted to tankers? For that matter, the B-21 is supposed to be optionally manned. Build more B-21's but leave some "goodies" off to save some big $$, but turn them into KQ-21's? Convert the bomb bays to fuel bays... Maybe retain small weps bays for AIM-260's... so you have extra shooters onboard. Would make for a potentially interesting trade study.

[mixelflick]

I wonder when we will see much larger unmanned aerial refuelling tankers? Say something like KC-130 in capacity or something like that and then towards larger aircraft. I think the technology is becoming to a point where this would be possible and actually worthwhile. Of course having stealthy tanker would be preferable to improve survivability of the tanker force. Naturally it will take years (probably something like 15-20 years depending on capabilities) before such an aircraft could become operational even if full development started today. I see this happening at some point in the future as it would reduce personnel costs, improve tanker force survivability and performance. I could see something like supersized MQ-25 as a good possibility.

I dinno how a probe/drogue system would work, nor the dynamics of a refueling boom when so attached, but I noticed how voluminous the B-2's fuselage is, yet from training wing edge on... it is downright tiny. Would a flying wing make a good stealthy re-fueler? Rather than mothballing / destroying the B-2's as the B-21 Raider comes on line, could they be converted to tankers? For that matter, the B-21 is supposed to be optionally manned. Build more B-21's but leave some "goodies" off to save some big $$, but turn them into KQ-21's? Convert the bomb bays to fuel bays... Maybe retain small weps bays for AIM-260's... so you have extra shooters onboard. Would make for a potentially interesting trade study.

That's a pretty profound concept... stealthy tankers, with a bite. I'm relatively certain though the Pentagon will need virtually every B-21 airframe it can get to strike targets/hold them at risk. There are just too many theaters, too many targets etc and the B-52/B-1 will probably be shut out of most of them. We do know the B-1 has a much smaller radar signature and fantastic ECM, so I wonder if they're the better fit? Long legs, better speed than anything else we have and copious internal space for AIM-260's.

I'm not sure how many hours the B-1's have left on them, but it should at least be looked at IMO. If necessary, taking some out of the boneyard and updating them as stealthy tankers may be a lot cheaper option vs. a new build...

[steve2267]

I'm not convinced it is worth a trade study, but it's an idea. That's about all I'll say about it. QS, Gums, and esp. BlindPilot probably have much better reasons (than I) about why it is a dumb idea and would never fly (pun intended).

The engineer in me is doubtful you can just "slap" a refueling package on a bomber headed for scrap, and continue to use it. Then there is the whole RCS thing. Estimates I have read for the Bone's RCS range from about 1 m^2 to 10 m^2. That's HUGE compared to F-35's or F-22's. What's the point? Maybe you could re-fuel closer to the forward edge of battle, but is it worth the $$ of the hours engineers will burn to make such a concept work?

**IF**, hypothetically, you could just slap a refueling package on a B-2 (and somehow it works), then there is the whole RCS of the mating dance... if you've got two stealth aircraft, each -30dB or less, and then you suddenly stick a refuelling boom out in the slipstream that has an RCS by itself of -20dB or -10dB (or whatever it is)... what's the point? You're 1000nm deep behind the IADS line, quietly doing your thing, when your mount needs a drink, but to get it you basically paint a huge HERE I AM sign on enema 'dar scopes?

I'm not convinced 1) it would work, and 2) it is worth the $$. But it might be a fun trade study. (If for no other reason then to stick a fork in a dumb idea.)

[marauder2048]

The Actively Stabilized Refueling Drogue System (ASDRS) described above.
Should be obvious but the left video is the passive drogue and right video is active.


By my Mk1 eyeball... they seem to have damped movement to less than one basket diameter. Impressive.

That seems to be right on.

Per the SBIR, the numerical prediction was a reduction in the maximum radial displacement of an F-18 drogue in light turbulence from 2.61 feet to 0.16 feet. Not sure if they achieved the latter but the former is very close to the
diameter of the basket.

With this sort of tech, I'd be curious if the B-2 or B-21 have wet stations in the bomb bays;
developing some sort of buddy refueling store for the bomb bay and retrofitting a portion
of the F-35A fleet with probes strikes me as very worthwhile.

[marsavian]

Reusing B-2s as large rangy stealthy tankers seems an excellent idea on paper if it is not too expensive or too hard technically. Although LM have left space on F-35A to fit probes the F-35B and F-35C could benefit immediately which makes me think that perhaps the USN should take ownership of such a B-2 conversion as after all the carrier strike force would need to keep major distances to targets more as a matter of self-defense and deep ingresses policies.

[popcorn]

One of the reasons cited for the early retirement of the B-2 was it's LO was questionable against advanced IADS threat. Doesn't bode well for it's use as a LO.tanker.